What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
I do not see any need. The information is clear. Time is precious.ORIGINAL: Taxman66
How hard would it be to overlay a red tint onto the factory stack picture? Or perhaps use a blue/red border?
I am nervous about making the statements longer (e.g., by adding Armor/Infantry/Division/AntiTank/etc.). The space available does not have a lot of extra width. I have provided a lot of height for multiple lines, since there could be a lot of units in a hex and numerous attackers.ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
The statement:
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 2
is painful to see and interpret. Is there a CSV we can modify so that it says at the very least 2nd Arm instead of simply 2? Many different units have the designation 2, it makes sense to be just slightly more verbose. I'm sure we can abbreviate without thrashing the land units statistics (something that was much harder for air units).
So many units are named appropriately, it hurts to see 2nd Mot or 2nd Arm not being mentioned properly.
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am nervous about making the statements longer (e.g., by adding Armor/Infantry/Division/AntiTank/etc.). The space available does not have a lot of extra width. I have provided a lot of height for multiple lines, since there could be a lot of units in a hex and numerous attackers.ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
The statement:
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 2
is painful to see and interpret. Is there a CSV we can modify so that it says at the very least 2nd Arm instead of simply 2? Many different units have the designation 2, it makes sense to be just slightly more verbose. I'm sure we can abbreviate without thrashing the land units statistics (something that was much harder for air units).
So many units are named appropriately, it hurts to see 2nd Mot or 2nd Arm not being mentioned properly.
Changing the name of the unit in the data file is a possiblity. What you see here is taken straight from the WIF FE counters. I guess they assume that since the NATO symbol for infantry and the XXXX denoting army are part of the counter there is no need to say anything more than '2'.
It does - the orange dot (it should be larger and positioned slightly more to the right).ORIGINAL: lomyrin
Could you make the status dot on the target units show disorganized status ?
Lars
As a beta tester, you already have the CSV file for this: "Standard Units LND.CSV". If you want to modify the names, that's fine by me. All land units (except HQs) are selected randomly, not by name, so changing the names of non-HQs is ok.ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am nervous about making the statements longer (e.g., by adding Armor/Infantry/Division/AntiTank/etc.). The space available does not have a lot of extra width. I have provided a lot of height for multiple lines, since there could be a lot of units in a hex and numerous attackers.ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
The statement:
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 2
is painful to see and interpret. Is there a CSV we can modify so that it says at the very least 2nd Arm instead of simply 2? Many different units have the designation 2, it makes sense to be just slightly more verbose. I'm sure we can abbreviate without thrashing the land units statistics (something that was much harder for air units).
So many units are named appropriately, it hurts to see 2nd Mot or 2nd Arm not being mentioned properly.
Changing the name of the unit in the data file is a possiblity. What you see here is taken straight from the WIF FE counters. I guess they assume that since the NATO symbol for infantry and the XXXX denoting army are part of the counter there is no need to say anything more than '2'.
Exactly. When look at the 2 on the unit, it's obvious what it is, but when typed out it is much less clear. Imagine hexes with 2 units with the same number. It makes the ground strike much less informative.
Instead of Just using the number 2 I'd propose standard naming conventions for generic unit types, such as: Inf, Mot, Arm, Para, and so forth; all of which are the standard abbreviations. No need to mess with anything but the generic land units either.
That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para
instead of
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)
My guess is it would only take a some few hours to clean up the abbreviations for the land unit names. If nobody volunteers I would give it a try, particularly if the data was presented in CSV fashion.
Or simpler :ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para
instead of
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)
Yes, but if you rename the "2" INF unit as "2nd Inf", then when using the name & type you'll have "2nd Inf INF".ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
My guess is it would only take a some few hours to clean up the abbreviations for the land unit names. If nobody volunteers I would give it a try, particularly if the data was presented in CSV fashion.
Good job at improving this form. It is now much clearer than it was before.ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2nd and last in series.
Here is another ground strike from the same turn. Because the target is in the woods, the tactical/bombardment factors are halved. but a couple nice die rolls made the 800 mm unnecessary.
Note that the status indicators for the units in the stack viewers are the wrong size, they are zoom 4 instead of zoom 6. I need to increase them by 50%.
The use of bold is because the font 'floats' on the textured background. When the font is too thin, it loses legibility against the mottled background(s).ORIGINAL: Froonp
Good job at improving this form. It is now much clearer than it was before.ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2nd and last in series.
Here is another ground strike from the same turn. Because the target is in the woods, the tactical/bombardment factors are halved. but a couple nice die rolls made the 800 mm unnecessary.
Note that the status indicators for the units in the stack viewers are the wrong size, they are zoom 4 instead of zoom 6. I need to increase them by 50%.
Maybe you can also add in the first line that the target hex is a forest, and that the TAC factors are halved.
Maybe also you should not write the full sentences in bold. Too much bold kills the bold effect. Maybe you should just put the number rolled, and the ID of the unit ground striking and the ID unit targeted in bold.
Maybe also the "disorganized" word in green, and the "failed to disorganize" in red, so that success & failures are immediately identified by colors.
ORIGINAL: Froonp
Or simpler :ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para
instead of
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 PARA
This way you'd just need to add the type of unit beside the ID, not needing to calculate the "st", "nd", or "rd" or "th".
ORIGINAL: Froonp
Yes, but if you rename the "2" INF unit as "2nd Inf", then when using the name & type you'll have "2nd Inf INF".ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
My guess is it would only take a some few hours to clean up the abbreviations for the land unit names. If nobody volunteers I would give it a try, particularly if the data was presented in CSV fashion.
I thin this is better & simpler to just add the type in the result form for air strikes.
ORIGINAL: Froonp
Or simpler :ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para
instead of
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 PARA
This way you'd just need to add the type of unit beside the ID, not needing to calculate the "st", "nd", or "rd" or "th".